Beyond that, a few small errors in the article, the most trivial but which irritated me is the translation Makhzen. Makhzen is not storehouse in Maghrebine usage, it is Treasury.

It actually rather brings home what people really mean when they use the phrase to refer to 'le pouvoir' - "The Treasury" system says a lot.

As I touched on in comments changes in political habits and responsibilities will not arrive by simple declaration and while one might argue that they will not arrive without some cessation of powers by the King, one can not simply assume ceding power at present will actually result in an expected political change, rather than mere paralysis between a fractured and immature political landscape.

Worse, given the desperate need for economic liberalisation, I would expect ceding powers would likely lead to a left dominated government with even less liberal insticts than a royal government - at least in this area.

In this context, I agree with the quote from the article:

King Hassan was viewed as a dark, Machiavellian figure, quick to anger and pound the table with his hands. Aides were hesitant to raise unpleasant topics with him. King Mohammed, who is 42, is seen as far more concerned with humanitarian issues, yet not once since assuming the thrown in 1999 has he ever suggested diluting his role.

"We need time to create a democratic culture," said Nabil Benabdallah, the minister of communications. "We are in a transitional period, which is naturally one of extreme fragility. It is like the period when reptiles molt, when they are at their most fragile. Morocco is in that period - coming out of one system and going into another."

While true that growing into or creating a democratic culture can be a wheel-spinning excuse (see Egypt), at present, in Morocco, one does not have the sense that it is that yet. I personally feel, as compared to the Morocco I first came to know 15 years ago, this Morocco is laying down the foundation for the potential for real rule of law. If that sounds underwhelming, I merely note that it's framing things realistically. I would not be moved to say that about many other places in MENA, including Jordan which I love well enough as a place to live....

In the final analysis, I rather more strongly believe in the necessity of political reform to focus on liberalisation of the real centers of power, economic power and independence, and leave the frills such as political parties and other symptoms of progress to later.

[EDIT TO ADD]
I looked back on comments to find one interesting new one and one bigotted piece of idiocy.

I reproduce with some additions, here my reply thoughts.

First in regards to Kaufman:
"Well, re the resource curse that's not really 'most of the Middle East by any particular standard. The Gulf, Libya, Iraq (potentially), and Algeria. On the other hand, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen (not to mention Sudan) all are resource poor (although Tunisia and Egypt have enough hydrocarbons to buffer themselves)."

The problem with many of these countries is that they still have many rents in the economy due to immigrant remmitances and financial aid from the US. Since the problem of the resource curse are the resulting rents, the problem remains the same.

I would not put immigrant remittances in the same category as the resource curse - certainly not in the case of the Maghrebine situation.

Aid as a rent - US in regards to Jordan and Egypt, EU/French in regards to Morocco - that I agree with. Terribly distorting.

As to Max, I find ignorant Islamophobia tedious, pedestrian and stupid.
[The comment was:

Compare and contrast the nations along the North coast of the Mediterranean (Southern Europe) and the nations along the South coast of the Mediterranean (North Africa). The standout difference between the prosperous, civilized, and advanced North and the hell that is uniformly the Southern nations is Islam.

Spain shows that a nation can recover if Islam is thrown off.

The comment with respect to Spain is doubly stupid for its economic and historical illiteracy. Never mind the fact the Maghreb states are hardly "hells" - indeed as I live in work in the Maghreb I can say they're not bad little places, if sad underachievers.

But let's take the historical issue first. For the unenlightened (of which Max is evidently one), Spain kicked out its Muslims and Jews in 1492 with the fall of the Granada Emirate (although to be accurate some Jews and Muslims, believing the right Catholic prince's promises of tolerance hung on for a bit afterwards and ended up experiencing the tender attentions of the Inquisition as a reward for their gullibility).

The move, by most economic historians and observers not engaged in absurdist ahistorical religious bigotry, was something of an economic catastrophe as both sets made the core of an internationally focused trading community. The Spanish crown, however, got moderately lucky in finding the Americans to fleece and exporpriate in probably one of the world's biggest festivals of rent extraction (setting the stage for the rentier state habits that long predominated in Latin America) which while keeping the Spanish royalty, nobility and other rentier class members in good form for a while, rather ruined the domestic economy (already blessed with the expulsion of unwanted Jews and Muslims, who promptly went off to enrich other lands with their expertise).

Once the Spanish crown managed to piss away its wealth on wars and other fun things that non-productive parasitic rent extractors like to engage in, well Spain then became the impoverished appendage of Europe - along with Portugol - something of a joke really although they did manage a late 19th century/early 20th century spurt of me-too colonial activity and then proceeded to set a nice standard with Franco and his fine stultifying ultra-Catholic fascist regime.

Of course everyone knows how Spain took off during this period... oh wait, it didn't. No, in fact Spain remained fairly impoverished until Franco died, and the Monarchy helped guide the country into joining the EU - and now after vast sums of EU capital have been spent, it's got something approaching a proper infrastructure, etc. Oh yeah, and breaking the death grip of an obscurantist Catholic Church on politics, society and the like.

So, what's this irrational story about "shaking off the Muslim influence"? Queer and bigotted reading of history I would say.

The real difference between the Northern side and the Southern side is histories of colonial rule, poorly developed institutions in the post-colonial period and rather stunningly bad economic policy choices; as well as rather poor access to the honey pot that is EU financing (as well as the relative institutional discipline - although the Greeks and to a lesser extent the Italians seem hell bent on proving that even with such resources and massive transfers, one can still be a chronic under-performer).